Implisiete AM -246 - Geskiedenis

Implisiete AM -246 - Geskiedenis

Implisiete ek

(AM-246: dp. 530; 1. 184'6 "; b. 33 '; dr. 9'9"; s. 15 k.
kpl. 104; a. 1 3 ", 4 40 mm; kl. ~ Wenslik)

Die eerste Implisiete (AM-246) is van stapel gestuur deur Savannah Machine & Foundry Co., Savannah, Ga, 6 September 1943; geborg deur mev Helen P. Page; en in opdrag van 20 Januarie 1944, Et. Comdr. H. V. Brown in bevel.

Na haar opleiding in Chesapeake en Casco Bays, het Implicit op 21 April 1944 van Norfolk op konvooi na Bermuda gevaar. Sy stoom tussen die hawens van Norfolk en die Karibiese Eilande op begeleiding tot sy terugkeer na Hampton Roads op 16 Junie. Die skip berei haar dan voor vir haar aandeel in die inval in Suid -Frankryk en vaar 24 Julie 1944 met vervoer na Oran, Algerië. Sy het 20 Augustus, vyf dae na die aanvanklike landings, in die suide van Frankryk aangekom, en begin met 'n daaglikse skedule van mynevee en patrolleer. Sy het van baie drywende myne ontslae geraak en 6 September en 10 September vuur met 'n walbattery verruil. Implisiet het van San Rafael na Bizerte op 23 Oktober gevaar waar sy mynevee -oefeninge uitgevoer het.

Die skip het 18 Januarie 1945 vanaf Palermo gevaar en nadat hy in Athene en Istanbul gestop het, het Yalta op 31 Januarie 1945 aangekom om by te woon tydens die historiese Jalta -konferensie van geallieerde staatshoofde. Na die konferensie het sy teruggegaan na die aankoms in Palermo 21 Febroury, na antisubmarine -oefeninge, het Implisiet in konvooi vir die IJnited States gevaar, met aankoms in Norfolk 5 Mei 1945. Met die oorlog in Europa verby, berei sy haar voor op die Stille Oseaan en vaar 5 Julie 1945 via die Panamakanaal vir San Diego. Daar het die skip mynevee en teenmaatreëls in die waters van Kalifornië uitgevoer voordat dit op 20 Augustus, vyf dae na die oorgawe van Japan, in Pearl Harbor aangekom het.

Die einde van die oorlog het streng diensplig vir vlootmynveërs meegebring, en Implisiet het op 3 September na Eniwetok, Saipan, Okinawa en ander Stille Oseaan -eilande gevaar om mynvelde op te neem. Sy het ook hierdie noodsaaklike gevaarlike plig uitgevoer in die Sasebo -hawe en in die Suid -Chinese See, sowel as in die Formosa -straat. Die skip het op 18 Februarie 1946 vanaf Eniwetok gevaar en op 18 Maart via die Hawaii -eilande na San Pedro aangekom. Sy het daar gebly tot 20 Julie, toe die veteraanskip aan die gang was om na China te vervoer. Deur versterking via Eniwetok en die Filippyne het sy op 30 Oktober 1946 in Subic Bay aangekom en op 16 November 1946 buite werking gestel. Na baie vertraging is sy uiteindelik op 15 Junie 1948 aan die Nationalist Chinese Navy oorgedra, waar sy dien as Yung Chia (MSF - 7).

Implisiete het twee strydsterre ontvang vir diens in die Tweede Wêreldoorlog.


Implisiete vooroordeel in gesondheidsberoepe: van erkenning tot transformasie

Implisiete herkenning van vooroordeel en kurrikulums vir bestuur word aangebied as 'n toenemend gewilde oplossing om gesondheidsverskille aan te spreek en billikheid te bevorder. Ten spyte van groei in die veld, is benaderings tot implisiete vooroordeelonderrig uiteenlopend en het dit gemengde resultate. Die konsep van implisiete vooroordeelherkenning en -bestuur is relatief ontluikend, en besprekings rakende implisiete vooroordeel het ook kritiek en kontroversie ontlok. Daarbenewens kom uitdagings met betrekking tot assessering, fakulteitsontwikkeling en weerstandbiedende leerders na vore in die literatuur. In hierdie konteks het die outeurs implisiete vooroordeelherkennings- en bestuurskurrikulums herontwerp as unieke vorme van transformerende leer wat die kritieke bewussyn in beide individue en kliniese leeromgewings verhoog. Die skrywers het transformatiewe leerteorie (TLT) voorgestel as 'n riglyn vir die implementering van opvoedkundige strategieë wat verband hou met implisiete vooroordeel in gesondheidsberoepe. As dit deur die lens van TLT beskou word, word leerplanne om implisiete vooroordele te herken en te bestuur, geposisioneer as 'n instrument om sosiale geregtigheid te bevorder.


Implisieteorieë: aannames wat sosiale en morele kognisie vorm

Abstract

Implisiete teorieë is a priori oortuigings oor die kenmerke en eienskappe van voorwerpe, insluitend mense. In hierdie hoofstuk beskryf ek navorsing wat die effekte van implisiete teorieë op verskillende punte van die stroom van sosiale inligting verwerk. Baie van hierdie navorsing het gefokus op die vergelyking van mense met 'n 'entiteitsteorie' (die oortuiging dat menslike eienskappe vas is) met mense met 'n 'inkrementele teorie' (die oortuiging dat menslike eienskappe smeebaar is). Ek kyk ook na navorsing wat fokus op mense se teorieë oor opsetlikheid, sowel as hul teorieë oor genetika. Ek beskryf elke tipe teorie se invloed op prosesse soos aandagstoekenning, kodering, herwinning en toeskrywingsberedenering. Ek vat ook bewyse saam wat aandui dat die aktivering van 'n implisiete teorie 'n gemotiveerde vooroordeel skep wat inligting bevoordeel wat in ooreenstemming is met die teorie. Saam stel ek maniere voor waarop 'n implisiete teoriebenadering nuwe lig werp op die fundamentele sosiale inligtingsprosesse.


Implisiete vooroordeel by gesondheidswerkers: 'n sistematiese oorsig

Agtergrond: Implisiete vooroordele behels assosiasies buite bewuste bewussyn wat lei tot 'n negatiewe evaluering van 'n persoon op grond van irrelevante eienskappe soos ras of geslag. Hierdie oorsig ondersoek die bewyse dat gesondheidswerkers implisiete vooroordeel teenoor pasiënte toon.

Metodes: PubMed, PsychINFO, PsychARTICLE en CINAHL is gesoek na eweknie-geëvalueerde artikels wat tussen 1 Maart 2003 en 31 Maart 2013 gepubliseer is. Twee beoordelaars het die geskiktheid van die geïdentifiseerde referate beoordeel op grond van presiese inhoud en kwaliteitskriteria. Die verwysings van kwalifiserende referate is ondersoek om verdere geskikte studies te identifiseer.

Resultate: Twee en veertig artikels is geïdentifiseer as geskik. Sewentien het 'n implisiete maatstaf (implisiete assosiasietoets in vyftien en subliminale inskakeling in twee) gebruik om die vooroordele van gesondheidswerkers te toets. Vyf en twintig artikels het 'n ontwerp tussen vakke gebruik, met behulp van vignette om die invloed van pasiëntkenmerke op die houding, diagnoses en behandelingsbesluite van gesondheidswerkers te ondersoek. Die tweede metode is ingesluit, hoewel dit nie implisiete houdings isoleer nie, omdat dit erken word deur sielkundiges wat spesialiseer in implisiete kognisie as 'n manier om die moontlike teenwoordigheid van implisiete vooroordeel op te spoor. Sewe en twintig studies het ras/etniese vooroordeel ondersoek en tien ander vooroordele is ondersoek, insluitend geslag, ouderdom en gewig. Vyf en dertig artikels het bewyse van implisiete vooroordeel by gesondheidswerkers gevind. Al die studies wat verbandhoudings ondersoek het, het 'n beduidende positiewe verband gevind tussen die vlak van implisiete vooroordeel en laer kwaliteit van sorg.

Bespreking: Die bewyse dui aan dat professionele persone in die gesondheidsorg dieselfde mate van implisiete vooroordeel toon as die groter bevolking. Die interaksies tussen veelvuldige pasiëntkenmerke en tussen gesondheidswerker en pasiëntkenmerke toon die kompleksiteit van die verskynsel van implisiete vooroordeel en die invloed daarvan op interaksie tussen dokter en pasiënt. Die mees oortuigende studies uit ons oorsig is dié wat die IAT kombineer met 'n metode om die kwaliteit van die behandeling in die werklike wêreld te meet. Korrelasiegetuienis dui aan dat vooroordele in sommige omstandighede waarskynlik die diagnose en behandelingsbesluite en sorgvlakke sal beïnvloed en dat dit verder ondersoek moet word. Ons oorsig dui ook aan dat daar soms 'n gaping kan wees tussen die norm van onpartydigheid en die mate waarin dit deur sommige professionele persone in die gesondheidsorg omhels word.

Gevolgtrekkings: Ons bevindinge beklemtoon die noodsaaklikheid van die gesondheidsorgberoep om die rol van implisiete vooroordele in ongelykhede in die gesondheidsorg aan te spreek. Meer navorsing oor werklike sorgomgewings en 'n groter homogeniteit in metodes wat gebruik word om implisiete vooroordele in die gesondheidsorg te toets, is nodig.

Sleutelwoorde: Gesindhede van gesondheidspersoneel Ongelykhede in gesondheidsorg Implisiete vooroordeel Vooroordeel Stereotipering.


Wat is implisiete vooroordeel?

Die idee dat die meeste mense implisiet bevooroordeeld is, het 'n groot impak op die samelewing. Groot ondernemings soos Starbucks gee byvoorbeeld opleiding aan hul werknemers om implisiete vooroordeel te verminder en die staat Kalifornië het wetgewing ingestel om implisiete vooroordeel te bekamp.

Maar wat beteken dit eintlik om te sê dat u implisiet bevooroordeeld is? In 'n onlangse koerant wat in die tydskrif gepubliseer is Perspektiewe op die sielkundige wetenskap, Het ek probeer om nuwe lig te werp op hierdie belangrike vraag.

Oorweeg die volgende voorbeeld: Stel jou voor dat jy 'n werkgewer is wat 'n onderhoud voer met 'n kandidaat vir 'n hoogs gesogte pos. Die ideaal is dat u besluit om hierdie persoon aan te stel slegs gebaseer is op die kandidaat se kwalifikasies. U kan dit probeer bereik deur die optimale omstandighede te skep om slegs relevante inligting in ag te neem. U kan uself byvoorbeeld die doel stel om slegs aandag te gee aan relevante inligting, soos die inhoud van die CV. U sit alle ander afleidings soos u selfoon opsy, sodat u u volle aandag aan die onderhoud kan skenk en u genoeg tyd uit u skedule kan neem om die besluit te neem.

Navorsing dui egter sterk daarop dat u besluit nog steeds beïnvloed kan word deur die ras en geslag van die aansoeker. So 'n impak van ras of geslag sou 'n voorbeeld wees van implisiete vooroordeel. U word sistematies beïnvloed (dit wil sê, u is bevooroordeeld) deur elemente in u omgewing (bv. Die velkleur van die aansoeker), alhoewel u nie van plan was om beïnvloed te word nie en op ander dinge gefokus het (dit het implisiet gebeur ).

Sielkundiges weet al lank dat ons gedagtes, gevoelens en optrede implisiet beïnvloed kan word. Neem die voorbeeld van die Müller-Lyer-illusie. U taak is om te besluit of reël A of reël B die langer een is.

U het waarskynlik die indruk dat reël B langer is as reël A, maar in werklikheid is beide reëls ewe lank. Wat gebeur, is dat u deur die pyle aan die einde van die reëls beïnvloed word, al gee u nie aandag aan die pyle nie, of het u selfs die doel om nie deur die pyle beïnvloed te word nie. U is implisiet bevooroordeeld deur die pyle, dit wil sê, wat u bewustelik waarneem, word op 'n sistematiese wyse deur die pyle beïnvloed (dit wil sê, u is bevooroordeeld), alhoewel u nie van plan is om beïnvloed te word nie of selfs wil voorkom dat u beïnvloed word deur die pyle pyle (dws die vooroordeel is implisiet). Die belangrikste ding wat moderne navorsing oor implisiete vooroordeel by hierdie verhaal gevoeg het, is die besef dat mense implisiet bevooroordeeld kan wees, nie net deur pyle nie, maar ook deur sosiale elemente in ons omgewings, dit wil sê elemente wat dui op die sosiale groep waartoe ander behoort ( velkleur).

As dit op hierdie manier bedink word, is implisiete vooroordeel 'n normale gedragsverskynsel: dit gebeur gereeld met almal. Vanuit morele oogpunt is implisiete sosiale vooroordeel egter 'n hoogs omstrede verskynsel. Baie van ons wil nie implisiet bevooroordeeld wees nie, dit wil sê dat ons dikwels nie wenslik is om deur sosiale leidrade beïnvloed te word nie, soos wanneer ons probeer om die beste persoon vir die werk aan te stel. Ander is in die versoeking om aan te voer dat implisiete vooroordeel oorskat word (miskien selfs geregverdig) en dat minderhede eenvoudig moet verskerp. Daar is ook baie kontroversie onder wetenskaplikes oor die meting en onderliggende meganismes van implisiete vooroordeel.

Elkeen van hierdie debatte is belangrik en moet ondersoek word, maar probleme ontstaan ​​wanneer implisiete vooroordeel gedefinieer word in terme van moraliteit (bv. as 'n onbewuste interne krag wat mense se gedrag dryf). Beskou die algemene opvatting dat implisiete vooroordeel 'n onbewuste interne krag is wat gemeet kan word met behulp van take soos die Implisiete Verenigingstoets en wat ons laat doen wat ons nie wil doen nie. Vanweë hierdie siening is mense wat die idee teenstaan ​​dat implisiete vooroordeel immoreel is, wat die geldigheid van maatreëls van implisiete vooroordeel bevraagteken, of wat twyfel dat daar 'n onbewuste interne krag is wat gedrag dryf, die implisiete vooroordeel heeltemal af te sien. Sodoende verloor hulle die spoor van die feit dat implisiete vooroordeel as gedragsverskynsel onbetwisbaar is.

Meningsverskille oor moraliteit, meting en meganismes moet ons nie daarvan weerhou om te aanvaar dat ons gedagtes, gevoelens en dade implisiet deur sosiale leidrade beïnvloed kan word nie (bv. Selfs as ons nie van plan is om beïnvloed te word nie). Implisiete vooroordeel, as gedragsverskynsel, is en sal werklik en belangrik bly.

Die skrywer bedank Pieter Van Dessel, Yannick Boddez en Abigail Fagan vir terugvoer oor vorige weergawes.


Om mense bewus te maak van hul implisiete vooroordele, verander gewoonlik nie van gedagte nie. Maar hier is wat werk

'N Kwarteeu gelede het die sosiale sielkundige Anthony Greenwald van die Universiteit van Washington 'n toets ontwikkel wat 'n ongemaklike aspek van die menslike verstand blootgestel het: Mense het diepgaande vooroordele waarvan hulle nie heeltemal bewus is nie. En hierdie verborge houdings - bekend as implisiete vooroordeel - beïnvloed die manier waarop ons teenoor mekaar optree, dikwels met onbedoelde diskriminerende gevolge.

Sedertdien het Greenwald en sy belangrikste medewerkers, Mahzarin Banaji en Brian Nosek, die implisiete assosiasietoets gebruik om te meet hoe vinnig en akkuraat mense verskillende sosiale groepe assosieer met eienskappe soos goed en sleg. Hulle het weergawes van die toets ontwikkel om dinge soos onbewuste houding oor ras, geslagstereotipes en vooroordeel teenoor ouer mense te meet. Hierdie toetse het onthul hoe deurdringend implisiete vooroordeel is. (Project Implicit bied hier openbare weergawes van die toetse op sy webwerf aan.)

Die navorsers se werk het ook getoon hoeveel implisiete vooroordeel sosiale gedrag en besluitneming kan vorm. Selfs mense met die beste bedoelings word beïnvloed deur hierdie verborge houdings, en gedra hulle op 'n manier wat ongelykhede kan veroorsaak in die aanstellingspraktyk, studente -evaluering, wetstoepassing, strafregtelike verrigtinge - byna oral waar mense besluite neem wat ander raak. Sulke verskille kan voortspruit uit vooroordeel teenoor sekere groepe, of bevoordeling teenoor ander. Tans word implisiete vooroordeel algemeen beskou as 'n oorsaak van onbedoelde diskriminasie wat lei tot rasse-, etniese, sosio -ekonomiese en ander ongelykhede.

Besprekings oor die rol van rassisme en implisiete vooroordeel in die patroon van ongelyke behandeling van rasseminderhede deur wetstoepassers neem toe na 'n lys van hoë profiel-sake, mees onlangs die moord op George Floyd. Floyd, 'n ongewapende swart man, is verlede maand in Minneapolis dood nadat 'n wit polisiebeampte byna nege minute lank sy knie in Floyd se nek gedruk het.

Namate die bewustheid van implisiete vooroordeel en die gevolge daarvan toeneem, neem die belangstelling om dit te versag, toe. Maar dit is baie moeiliker om te doen as wat wetenskaplikes verwag het, soos Greenwald in Februarie tydens 'n jaarvergadering van die American Association for the Advancement of Science aan 'n gehoor in Seattle gesê het. Greenwald, mede -outeur van 'n oorsig oor implisiete vooroordeelnavorsing in 2020 Jaarlikse hersiening van sielkunde, het gepraat Bekende tydskrif oor wat wel en nie werk om die verskille wat implisiete vooroordeel kan veroorsaak, teen te werk nie.

Hierdie gesprek is geredigeer vir lengte en duidelikheid.

Hoe toets u verenigings wat mense nie weet dat hulle het nie?

Die eerste implisiete assosiasietoets wat ek gemaak het, was een wat die name van blomme en insekte insluit, en woorde wat dinge aangenaam of onaangenaam beteken. U moes die linker- en regterhand gebruik om dit te klassifiseer deur op 'n sleutelbord te tik soos dit op die skerm verskyn. Dit was 'n baie maklike taak as u die regterhand vir aangename woorde en blommename moes gebruik, en die linkerhand vir onaangename woorde en insekname, want ons dink gewoonlik aan blomme as aangenaam en insekte as onaangenaam.

Maar dan word die taak oorgeskakel om die teenoorgestelde assosiasies te dwing - die een hand vir insekname en aangename woorde, en die ander hand vir blomme en onaangename woorde. Toe ek die omgekeerde vorm die eerste keer probeer, was my reaksietyd ongeveer 'n derde van 'n sekonde stadiger in vergelyking met die eerste weergawe. En in sielkundige werk waar u mense vra om vinnig te reageer, is 'n derde van 'n sekonde soos 'n ewigheid, wat aandui dat sommige geestelike prosesse aan die gang is in hierdie weergawe van die toets wat nie in die ander gebeur nie.

Toe vervang ek die blomme en insekte met die voorname van mans en vroue wat maklik as Europees -Amerikaners of Afro -Amerikaners geklassifiseer kan word. Vir my het dieselfde reaksie op aangename woorde en Afro -Amerikaanse name 'n ewigheid gekos. Maar toe dit die Europese Amerikaanse name en aangename woorde met die een hand was, en die Afro -Amerikaanse name en die onaangename woorde met die ander hand, was dit iets waarmee ek kon rits. En dit was vir my 'n verrassing. Ek sou myself op daardie stadium beskryf het as iemand met 'n gebrek aan vooroordele of vooroordele van rasse aard. Ek het waarskynlik 'n paar vooroordele gehad waaroor ek sou erken, maar ek het eintlik nie gedink ek het die een nie.

Hoe wydverspreid is implisiete vooroordeel?

Die spesifieke implisiete vooroordeel, die een wat swart-wit ras betref, verskyn by ongeveer 70 persent tot 75 persent van alle Amerikaners wat die toets probeer. Dit verskyn sterker by wit Amerikaners en Asiatiese Amerikaners as by gemengde rasse of Afro-Amerikaners. Afro -Amerikaners, sou u dink, kan net die omgekeerde effek toon - dat dit vir hulle maklik sou wees om Afro -Amerikaners met aangename en wit Amerikaners saam met onaangenaam te kombineer. Maar nee, Afro -Amerikaners toon gemiddeld geen vooroordeel oor die taak nie.

Die meeste mense het verskeie implisiete vooroordele waarvan hulle nie bewus is nie. Dit is baie meer wydverspreid as wat algemeen aanvaar word.

Is implisiete vooroordeel 'n faktor in die patroon van polisiegeweld, soos wat gesien is tydens die moord op George Floyd op 25 Mei, wat die voortdurende protesoptredes regoor die land veroorsaak het?

Die probleme wat na die dood van George Floyd opduik, sluit alle vorme van vooroordeel in, wat wissel van implisiete vooroordeel tot strukturele vooroordeel in die werking van polisiedepartemente, howe en regerings, tot eksplisiete, bedoelde vooroordeel, tot haatmisdaad.

Die beste teorie oor hoe implisiete vooroordeel werk, is dat dit bewuste denke vorm, wat op sy beurt oordeel en besluite lei. Die korrespondent van ABC News, Pierre Thomas, het dit onlangs baie goed uitgespreek deur te sê: "Swart mense voel dat hulle as eerste as verdagtes behandel word en burgers tweede." As 'n swart persoon iets doen wat oop is vir alternatiewe interpretasies, soos om in 'n sak of 'n motorhandskoenkompartement te kom, dink baie mense - nie net polisiebeamptes nie - eers dat dit moontlik gevaarlik is. Maar dit sou nie gebeur as 'n blanke presies dieselfde optrede sien nie. Die implikasies van 'n bewuste oordeel wat op hierdie wyse gevorm word deur 'n outomatiese, implisiete proses waarvan die waarnemer nie bewus is nie, kan baie belangrik wees in die uitkomste van interaksies met die polisie.

Help die diversiteit of implisiete vooroordeelopleidingsprogramme wat gebruik word deur maatskappye en instansies soos Starbucks en die polisiekantoor in Oakland, om vooroordeel te verminder?

Ek is tans baie skepties oor die meeste van wat aangebied word onder die etiket van implisiete vooroordeelopleiding, omdat die metodes wat gebruik word nie wetenskaplik getoets is om aan te dui dat dit effektief is nie. En hulle gebruik dit sonder om te probeer bepaal of die opleiding wat hulle doen, die gewenste resultate behaal.

Ek sien die meeste implisiete vooroordeelopleiding as vensterversiering wat intern sowel as vir 'n organisasie goed lyk, asof jy bekommerd is en iets wil doen. Maar dit kan ontplooi word sonder om iets te bereik, wat dit in werklikheid teenproduktief maak. Na tien jaar dat ek hierdie dinge gedoen het en niemand data gerapporteer het nie, dink ek die logiese gevolgtrekking is dat as ons dit werk, ons daarvan sou gehoor het.

Kan u ons vertel van sommige van die benaderings wat bedoel is om vooroordeel wat nie gewerk het nie, te verminder?

Ek gee u 'n paar voorbeelde van tegnieke wat beproef is met die veronderstelling dat dit sou bereik wat soms debiasing genoem word of implisiete vooroordele verminder. Die een is blootstelling aan teen-stereotipiese voorbeelde, soos om voorbeelde te sien van bewonderenswaardige wetenskaplikes of entertainers of ander Afro-Amerikaners, asook voorbeelde van blankes wat massamoordenaars is. En dit het 'n onmiddellike effek. U kan aantoon dat dit 'n toetsuitslag sal beïnvloed as u dit binne ongeveer 'n halfuur meet. Maar dit is onlangs gevind dat wanneer mense met langer vertragings, 'n dag of meer, hierdie toetse begin doen, die voordelige effek daarvan verdwyn het.

Implisiete vooroordeel is deurdringend

Honderde studies het die werking van implisiete vooroordeel in 'n wye reeks omgewings onthul. Hier is 'n paar voorbeelde wat demonstreer hoe dit kan gebeur in omtrent elke situasie waarin mense besluite neem wat ander mense raak.

In wetstoepassing: 'N Studie het bevind dat die polisie in New York swart en Spaanse voetgangers meer gereeld as wit voetgangers gestop het, en 'n studie in Oakland, Kalifornië, het bevind dat swart mans baie meer geneig is om geboei, deursoek of gearresteer te word as enigiemand anders as hulle deur die polisie voorgekeer word .

In die kantoor: Die aanstelling van bestuurders was minder geneig om 'n vetsugtige aansoeker vir 'n onderhoud uit te nooi, mense beskou ouer werknemers as minder waardevol en vooroordeel teenoor Arabies-Moslem-mans het hul besluite in Swede beïnvloed.

In die hofsaal: Studies het bevind dat implisiete vooroordeel teen Afro -Amerikaners byna elke stap in die regstelsel beïnvloed, van aanklaers om te besluit watter sake hulle moet aankla tot regters wat besluite neem.

In die klaskamer: Openbare hoërskoolonderwysers in Swede het hoër toetse aan studente met Sweedse agtergronde gegee as diegene met buitelandse, terwyl Amerikaanse sielkunde -studente jong manlike onderwysers hoër as ouer mans beoordeel het, sowel as jonger en ouer vroue.

In die hospitaal: Dokters het meer geneig om wit pasiënte met akute koronêre siektes 'n bloedklont-behandeling te bied as vir swart pasiënte met dieselfde simptome, en verpleegstudente toon 'n vooroordeel teenoor oorgewig pasiënte.

In 'n pandemie? 'N Studie het getoon dat wanneer mense veral kwesbaar voel vir aansteeklike siektes, hul negatiewe houding teenoor ouer volwassenes verhoog kan word.

Ander strategieë wat nie baie effektief was nie, sluit in om mense aan te moedig om 'n sterk voorneme te hê om hulself nie te bevooroordeeld nie. Of afrigters sal voorstel dat mense iets doen wat hulle kan noem 'stadig dink' of stilstaan ​​voordat hulle besluite neem. 'N Ander metode wat beproef is, is meditasie. En 'n ander strategie is om mense bewus te maak dat hulle implisiete vooroordele het of dat implisiete vooroordele algemeen in die bevolking voorkom. Al hierdie dinge lyk redelik, maar daar is geen empiriese bewys dat dit werk nie.

Dit is vir my verbasend dat mense bewus maak van hul vooroordeel niks doen om dit te versag nie. Hoekom dink jy dit is?

Ek dink jy het reg, dit is verbasend. Die meganismes waardeur ons brein assosiasies vorm en dit uit die kulturele omgewing verkry, het oor lang tye ontwikkel, waartydens mense geleef het in 'n konsekwente omgewing. Dit is onwaarskynlik dat hulle iets sou bekom wat hulle later sou moes leer, omdat die omgewing nie sou verander nie. Daar was dus moontlik geen evolusionêre druk vir die menslike brein om 'n metode te ontwikkel om die assosiasies te leer nie.

Ek weet nie hoekom ons nie daarin geslaag het om effektiewe tegnieke te ontwikkel om implisiete vooroordele te verminder soos dit gemeet word aan die implisiete assosiasietoets nie. Ek is nie bereid om te sê dat ons dit nooit sal kan doen nie, maar ek sal sê dat mense al lankal gesoek het sedert die toets bekendgestel is, wat nou meer as 20 jaar is, en dit is nog nie opgelos nie.

Is daar iets wat werk?

Ek dink dat baie bereik kan word deur slegs data te versamel om die verskille wat as gevolg van vooroordeel voorkom, te dokumenteer. En miskien is 'n maklike voorbeeld die polisie -operasies, hoewel dit in baie instellings toegepas kan word. Die meeste polisiedepartemente bewaar inligting oor wat ons as profilering ken, hoewel hulle dit nie graag noem nie. Dit is wat gebeur in 'n verkeersstop of 'n voetgangerstop-byvoorbeeld die stop-en-frisk-beleid waarvoor die voormalige burgemeester van New York, Michael Bloomberg, hitte gekry het. Die data van die New York City Police Department vir stop van swart en wit voetgangers en bestuurders is ontleed, en dit was baie duidelik dat daar verskille was.

As u eers weet waar die probleem is wat opgelos moet word, is dit aan die administrateurs om maniere uit te vind hoekom en hoe dit gebeur. Gebeur dit net in sommige dele van die stad? Is dit dat die polisie net meer in Harlem werk as in die blanke woonbuurte?

En as u eers weet wat gebeur, is die volgende stap wat ek diskresie -uitskakeling noem. Dit kan toegepas word wanneer mense besluite neem wat subjektiewe oordeel oor 'n persoon behels. Dit kan wees polisielede, werkgewers wat besluite neem oor verhuring of bevordering, dokters wat besluit oor die behandeling van 'n pasiënt, of onderwysers wat besluite neem oor die prestasie van studente. As hierdie besluite met diskresie geneem word, sal dit waarskynlik onbedoelde ongelykhede tot gevolg hê. Maar as hierdie besluite geneem word op grond van voorafbepaalde, objektiewe kriteria wat streng toegepas word, is dit baie minder geneig om ongelykhede te veroorsaak.

Is daar bewyse dat diskresie -uitskakeling werk?

Wat ons weet, kom uit die seldsame gevalle waarin die gevolge van diskriminasie -uitskakeling aangeteken en gerapporteer is. Die klassieke voorbeeld hiervan is toe groot simfonieorkeste in die Verenigde State in die 1970's blinde oudisies begin gebruik het. Dit is oorspronklik gedoen omdat musikante gedink het dat die oudisies bevooroordeeld was vir gegradueerdes van sekere skole soos die Juilliard -skool. Hulle was nie bekommerd oor geslagsdiskriminasie nie.

Maar sodra oudisies agter die skerms begin word, sodat die kunstenaar nie gesien kan word nie, het die aandeel vroue wat as instrumentaliste in groot simfonieorkeste aangestel is, gestyg van ongeveer 10 persent of 20 persent voor 1970 tot ongeveer 40 persent. Dit het 'n groot invloed gehad op die tempo waarteen vroue instrumentaliste in groot simfonieorkeste geword het.

Maar word hierdie strategieë vir die insameling en uitskakeling van data nie algemeen gebruik nie?

Nie naastenby so gereeld as wat hulle kon nie. Byvoorbeeld, instrukteurs kan gewoonlik reël om byna alles wat 'n student doen, te gradeer sonder om die identiteit van die student te ken. In 'n elektroniese tydperk waarin u nie leer om die handskrif van mense te herken nie, kan instrukteurs opstelle sonder die studente se name daarop gradeer. Ek het die benadering gebruik toe ek laas die voorgraadse studente in kursusse behaal het. Dit is maklik om te gebruik, maar dit word dikwels glad nie gebruik nie.

En in baie ander omstandighede is dit moontlik om prestasie te evalueer sonder om die identiteit van die geëvalueerde persoon te ken. Maar werkgewers en ander verlaat selde die geleentheid om die identiteit van die persoon wat hulle evalueer te ken.

Kan kunsmatige intelligensie 'n rol speel?

Mense begin kunsmatige intelligensie op die taak toepas deur historiese rekords van vorige besluite oor indiensneming te ontgin. Dit is 'n manier om die besluite te neem wat menslike diskresie behels en in die hande van 'n masjien te plaas. Die idee is om algoritmes te ontwikkel wat belowende aansoekers identifiseer deur hul eienskappe te pas by dié van vorige aansoekers wat suksesvolle werknemers was.

Ek dink dit is 'n goeie ding om te probeer. Maar tot dusver het pogings met AI nie geslaag nie, want die historiese databasisse wat gebruik is om die algoritmes te ontwikkel om hierdie besluite te neem, blyk ook bevooroordeeld te wees. Dit bevat die vooroordele van vorige besluitnemers. Een voorbeeld is hoe vooroordele gesigsherkenningstegnologie beïnvloed, wat Afro-Amerikaanse gesigte of Asiatiese gesigte per ongeluk meer as kriminele as wit gesigte kategoriseer.

Dit is 'n probleem waarmee rekenaarwetenskaplikes probeer om te gaan, maar sommige van die mense in AI wat ek gepraat het, lyk nie so optimisties dat dit maklik sal wees nie. Maar ek dink wel dat die vooroordele uiteindelik-en dit kan 'n rukkie neem-makliker uit AI-besluitalgoritmes verwyder kan word as uit menslike besluitneming.

Kan meer gedoen word op die vlak van 'n individuele onderneming of afdeling?

Om onbedoelde diskriminasie te voorkom, moet die leiers van organisasies besluit om data op te spoor om te sien waar verskille voorkom. As hulle verskille ontdek, moet hulle probeer om veranderinge aan te bring en dan na die volgende siklus van data te kyk om te sien of hierdie veranderinge dinge verbeter.

Dit is duidelik dat dit vir hulle makliker is om nie die dinge te doen nie. In sommige gevalle is dit 'n koste om dit te doen. En hulle dink miskien dat dit is soos om Pandora se boks oop te maak as hulle die data noukeurig bekyk. Ek dink dit geld vir baie polisiedepartemente. Hulle sal beslis dinge moet vind wat hulle liewer nie wil sien nie.

Hierdie artikel verskyn oorspronklik in Bekende tydskrif, 'n onafhanklike joernalistieke poging van Annual Reviews. Teken in vir die nuusbrief.

Links: Illustrasie deur Getty Images


Eksplisiet en implisiet

Baie van die voorbeelde hierbo het eksplisiete bewyse. Dit wil sê, die bewyse kan op een of ander manier direk gesien, gehoor of ervaar word, soos om te sien dat die lig groen is voordat u die straat oorsteek. Maar soms het u studente nie direkte bewyse nie.

Hier is 'n paar oefeninge wat u kinders kan doen wat hulle sal help om die verskil tussen implisiete en implisiete inligting te leer ken:

Eksplisiete en implisiete inligting (voorbeelde)

U leer die verskil tussen eksplisiet en implisiet deur eers voorbeelde te definieer en te gee (net soos met enige ander konsep).

Eksplisiete inligting is wat u oor die algemeen kan sien of hoor, en word as akkuraat beskou.

Implisiete inligting kan nie gesien of gehoor word nie, maar kan geïmpliseer/afgelei word.

Eksplisiet: Hy het gesien hoe sy hond die man aan die broeksit gryp.

Implisiet: Hy hoor sy hond blaf en grom en sien hoe die man met die hond agter hom aan hardloop en daar was 'n groot gat in die sitplek van die man se broek.

Hier is 'n paar vrae wat u kinders kan help om die verskil tussen eksplisiet en implisiet te leer. Laat hulle identifiseer wat eksplisiet en wat implisiet is in die volgende:

1) Jy sien 'n man huil en na sy pak kyk met water daaroor.

2) Jy sien 'n man huil en kyk na 'n meisie met 'n leë waterglas wat na hom staar.

3) Jy sien 'n meisie wat water gooi en dit gaan oor 'n man in 'n pak. Hy hou nie daarvan nie.


Implisiete AM -246 - Geskiedenis

Geïllustreer deur Haley Pak

Toe Jason Dahlke, 'n nood paramedikus in Portland, Oreg., 'N noodoproep ontbied is vir 'n swart man omstreeks 60 jaar wat kla oor uiterste pyn in sy hande en voete, het Dahlke' die standaardprosedure gevolg en die pasiënt 'n bloedglukose toets gegee ”Waarin die toets lae bloedsuikervlakke getoon het. Alhoewel hy die pasiënt glukose gegee het, het Dahlke geen pynmedisyne aan die pasiënt gegee nie. Op die vraag of hy die pynmedisyne sou toegedien het as die pasiënt wit was, het hy geantwoord dat hy nie seker sou wees of hy sou nie. Although Dahlke says “race doesn’t affect the treatment they give,” he also says he and his co-workers are starting to think more about implicit bias when treating patients (1).

Years of prejudice against the African American population affects modern healthcare systems that puts African American patients at a disadvantage. Though prejudice may not be as explicit and blatant as it was during the Jim Crow era, the repercussions of such pernicious bias against the African American Union Army veterans contribute to the racial mortality gap and health disparities to this day. In a study by Dr. Shari Eli, a professor of Economics at the University of Toronto, physician bias against African Americans in the late 19th and early 20th century impacted mortality and income outcomes for Civil War veterans. In order for veterans to receive higher pension, they had to provide physician approved proof of disability (2). The study found that although black and white veterans were equally likely to report pain, physicians were twice as likely to doubt pain for black veterans and more than three times to accuse black veterans as “exaggerating” their illness” (2). Therefore, black veterans were not able to receive as much pension as their white counterparts because of the physicians’ biased assessment that may have disallowed the black veterans from qualifying for higher pensions. The study noted that an additional dollar in monthly pensions income led to an additional 0.3 years of life (2). Society constantly depicts certain disadvantaged or underprivileged populations in a stereotypical and pejorative way that is projected onto cultural understandings of the world. Such cultural understandings may be the root of the problem regarding implicit bias in the healthcare setting.

Despite the rapid advancement in medicine, the same pervasive bias that neglects African American patients’ illnesses still exists today. According to a review of a study examining pain management in American emergency rooms, physicians tended to prescribe African American patients less pain medication compared to white patients. According to data from 14 previously published studies of pain management in American emergency rooms, when practitioners assessed patients with bone fractures or acute pain from traumatic injuries, “black people were 41% less likely to get pain medication than white people.” Physician implicit bias may not only affect acute pain, but also chronic noncancer pain. According to a study examining the impact of patient factors on the underestimation of pain perception of chronic noncancer pain, physicians were “twice as likely to underestimate pain in black patients compared to all ethnicities combined.” Furthermore, not only were physicians more likely to underestimate pain for black patients, they overestimated pain in 18.9% of white patients compared to 9.5% in black patients (4). The differences in pain perception by race between patient and physician can have prominent consequences. This statistic provides a need for better, more standardized ways of pain assessment. Physicians’ implicit biases may interfere with healing processes and decrease care that is provided for African American patients. A physician’s lack of care towards pain management may further the distrust in the healthcare institution that has failed to treat them properly because of implicit bias.

Another facet of bias in healthcare manifests through an algorithm from Optum, UnitedHealth Group Inc.’s health services branch that determines which patients require the most intensive medical needs. The algorithm “which has been applied to more than 200 million people each year” considerably underestimates medical needs of black patients. More specifically, the algorithm makes circumstances particularly disadvantageous for African Americans because of the pre-existing data that informs the program that “less money is spent on black patients with the same level of need as white patients.” Research conducted by Ziad Obermeyer, who studies machine learning and health-care management at the University of California, Berkeley, shows that according to the algorithm, “care provided to black people cost an average of $1,800 less per year than the care given to a white person with the same number of chronic health problems.” This means that the algorithm will conclude that black patients are less sick because they have been historically provided less care and thus have a lower risk score. Therefore, through this platform, inherited racism further instigates structural racism and stereotyping in healthcare. The algorithm follows a feedback loop that feeds more injustice into a system that already makes it disadvantageous for African Americans and other minority groups.

The implications for what unbiased healthcare could look like is shocking. 17.7% of the patients the algorithm assigned extra care to were black, but “the proportion would be 46.5% if the algorithm were unbiased.” The article mentions that in order to fix medical bias in this algorithm, another variable should be added so that the calculation does not rely so heavily on the healthcare costs (6). But many developers working on the algorithm are faced with a barrier: How does such an algorithm – that is quantitative measurement – account for the history of pernicious racism that has oppressed African Americans throughout history?

In order to combat workplace implicit bias, many institutions have implemented the Implicit Association Test (IAT) to measure unconscious attitudes or beliefs about current social stereotypes. It spurred organizations like Project Implicit that was founded in 1998 “to educate the public about hidden biases and to provide a ‘virtual laboratory’ for collecting data on the internet” (7). It is true that seemingly small implicit biases have an enormous effect on behavior and decisions. However, the IAT acknowledges the importance of recognizing implicit bias and does not provide any further information on strategies to reduce implicit bias.

One approach in reducing medical bias involves education of medical students. The current medical training environment often neglects the initiative for providers “to examine their role in the complex issues of unequal care and unconscious bias.” Vidya Viswanathan, a medical student at Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, suggests that medical schools should start supplementing their curriculum with implicit bias rounds where medical students, residents, and attendings should discuss cases “in which bias may have altered the care of a patient.” Like other complications that may have compromised a patient’s survival, implicit bias should also be formerly considered and discussed within practitioners to reduce unequal treatment based on race or ethnicity.

In an observational study that tracked the implicit bias of 3,547 medical students across 49 U.S. medical schools, curriculum relating to “health disparities and minority health, racial climate” and increased interracial contact during school reduced implicit bias of the students. Students were prompted to complete the Black-White Implicit Association Test and questionnaire during their first and last semester of medical schools. The study found students that regularly heard “negative comments from attending physicians or residents about African American patients” had a significant increase in the predictors of increased racial bias. Physicians may learn to perpetuate negative racial stereotypes while in medical school. In order to most effectively combat the issues of implicit bias in future physicians, medical schools can foster an environment in which students can practice self-evaluation and educators can facilitate discussions about the effects of unconscious bias.

However, there is a caveat to drastic interventions for implicit bias. Research shows that “intentionally trying to suppress bias may actually make it ‘rebound’ at a later time,” making it difficult to determine to what extent the intervention should be implemented. After the Institute of Medicine (IOM) discovered the presence of health care disparities due to bias, raising awareness about unconscious bias was their one and only solution (11). But simply raising awareness may not be enough to reverse the decades of injustice. Initiatives to increase awareness among healthcare providers may not have worked as planned. The study states that raising awareness about unconscious bias could encourage physicians and health care providers to become more observant in how they treat patients. However, mandatory diversity training programs at over 800 companies proved to be essentially counterproductive and “did not have a significant effect on prejudice levels.”

Although it may seem overly simplistic, it is nonetheless important that physicians also have the volition to reduce such implicit bias. Healthcare institutions should make sure that physicians are actively doing everything they can in their power to reduce the effects of implicit bias. In a social psychological analysis to reduce racial healthcare disparities by Dr. Louis Penner, a population science professor at Wayne State University School of Medicine, states that physicians “can reduce disparities by individuating patients and using patient-centered communication.” Patient-centered communication relies on establishing a relationship of trust and clear communication between the physician and patient. These factors may not only lead to a better quality of clinical interactions, but also better health outcomes (12). Another plausible addition to the solution for large healthcare systems is treatment standardization. Through standardized treatment, hospitals can gather information about treatments and outcomes so that it can reveal racial treatment disparities and “reduce unwarranted racial differences in treatment decisions.” Assessing such disparities can further the development of evidence-based interventions that may reduce disparities in treatment.

The legacy of the prejudice that oppressed African Americans during slavery and the Jim Crow era exists in today’s health disparities and implicit bias within the healthcare system. The foundation of health disparities lie in negative stereotypes perpetuated by structural injustice. In order to most effectively provide equitable care, policymakers should create programs that educate medical practitioners about health disparities that arise because of implicit bias and rectify programs that perpetuate negative racial stereotypes. Educational intervention on health disparities due to structural injustice should begin early in medical practice and should facilitate meaningful dialogue about how it promotes medical bias. Without addressing the on-going history of social and economic inequality, progress towards eliminating implicit bias cannot be made.


ProjectImplicit

On the next page you'll be asked to select an Implicit Association Test (IAT) from a list of possible topics . We will also ask you (optionally) to report your attitudes or beliefs about these topics and provide some information about yourself.

We ask these questions because the IAT can be more valuable if you also describe your own self-understanding of the attitude or stereotype that the IAT measures. We would also like to compare differences between people and groups.

Data Privacy: Data exchanged with this site are protected by SSL encryption. Project Implicit uses the same secure hypertext transfer protocol (HTTPS) that banks use to securely transfer credit card information. This provides strong security for data transfer to and from our website. IP addresses are routinely recorded, but are completely confidential. We make the anonymous data collected on the Project Implicit Demonstration website publicly available. You can find more information on our Data Privacy page.

Important disclaimer: In reporting to you results of any IAT test that you take, we will mention possible interpretations that have a basis in research done (at the University of Washington, University of Virginia, Harvard University, and Yale University) with these tests. However, these Universities, as well as the individual researchers who have contributed to this site, make no claim for the validity of these suggested interpretations. If you are unprepared to encounter interpretations that you might find objectionable, please do not proceed further. You may prefer to examine general information about the IAT before deciding whether or not to proceed.

You can contact our research team ([email protected]) or Harvard's Committee on the Use of Human Subjects ([email protected]) for answers to pertinent questions about the research and your rights, as well as in the event of a research-related injury to yourself.

I am aware of the possibility of encountering interpretations of my IAT test performance with which I may not agree. Knowing this, I wish to proceed

I am aware of the possibility of encountering interpretations of my IAT test performance with which I may not agree. Knowing this, I wish to proceed using a touchscreen OR using a keyboard.


Racial Disproportionality in School Discipline: Implicit Bias is Heavily Implicated

Research shows that African American students, and especially African American boys, are disciplined more often and receive more out-of-school suspensions and expulsions than White students. Perhaps more alarming is the 2010 finding that over 70% of the students involved in school-related arrests or referred to law enforcement were Hispanic or Black (Education Week, 2013). A 2009-2010 survey of 72,000 schools (kindergarten through high school) shows that while Black students made up only 18 percent of those enrolled in the schools sampled, they accounted for 35 percent of those suspended once, 46 percent of those suspended more than once and 39 percent of all expulsions. Over all, Black students were three and a half times more likely to be suspended or expelled than their White peers (Lewin, 2012).

The following city-specific data illustrate the magnitude of this problem: African American students in Portland public schools are nearly five times more likely to be expelled or suspended than White students (Cody, 2013). Volgens die San Francisco Chronicle, almost 20 percent of Oakland’s Black male students were suspended at least once in 2011—six times the rate of White students (Lyfe, 2012). In Chicago public schools, Black students comprised 45 percent of the student body in the 2009-2010 academic year but 76 percent of the suspensions (New York Times – Education, 2012).

Data compiled by the Ohio Children’s Defense Fund show that the level of disparity between out-of-school suspension rates for Black and White students in Ohio’s largest urban school districts ranges from a factor of 1.9 to a factor of 13.3. Overall, the disparity factor is 4.0, somewhat higher than the national average. This means that the average Black student enrolled in these districts is four times more likely to be suspended than the average White student (Children’s Defense Fund – Ohio, 2012).

A 2010 study found that among students who were classified as overtly aggressive, African Americans were more likely to be disciplined than any other group (Horner, Fireman, & Wang, 2010). However, this trend varied based on the racial background of the teacher. Researchers have found that once Black students and White students are both placed with same-race teachers, and are similar on the other covariates, Black students’ classroom behavior is rated more favorably than is White students’ behavior (Downey & Pribesh, 2004).

Research suggests that Black students as young as age five are routinely suspended and expelled from schools for minor infractions like talking back to teachers or writing on their desks. In a simple analysis of this phenomenon, the over-zealous application of “zero tolerance” policies gets all the blame, but a deeper dig will show a far more complex scenario.

Contrary to the prevailing assumption that African American boys are just getting “what they deserve” when they are disciplined, research shows that these boys do not “act out” in the classroom any more than their White peers. For example, in a study conducted by the Indiana Education Policy Center, researchers conclude that:

Although discriminant analysis suggests that disproportionate rates of office referral and suspension for boys are due to increased rates of misbehavior, no support was found for the hypothesis that African American students act out more than other students. Rather, African American students appear to be referred to the office for less serious and more subjective reasons. Coupled with extensive and highly consistent prior data, these results argue that disproportionate representation of African Americans in office referrals, suspension and expulsion is evidence of a pervasive and systematic bias that may well be inherent in the use of exclusionary discipline (Skiba, 2000).

These findings contrast sharply with prevailing stereotypes of African American youth, stereotypes energized by a mental process called “cultural deficit thinking.” This process creates the perception that poor African American and other marginalized students and their parents as disconnected from the education process. Consequently, teachers and other school personnel may harbor negative assumptions about the ability, aspirations and work ethic of these students—especially poor students of color—based on the assumption that they and their families do not value education in the same way it is valued by middle- and upper-income White students. This comment posted on the topix.com blog is emblematic of extreme cultural deficit thinking:

Black children lack any form of family structure. They are not taught respect for teachers or any [authoritive] figures. Most black children are disruptive, aggressive and are [more keen] on gang culture than getting an education (www.topix.com, 2010).

This perception of disinvestment often creates a stereotype of poor Black students as unruly, disruptive and disrespectful. Not surprisingly, research suggests that, generally, African American teachers rate the behavior of African American students more favorable than White teachers.

“Implicit bias” is heavily implicated as a contributing factor when we analyze the causes of racial disproportionality in school discipline. In this context, implicit bias is defined as the mental process that causes us to have negative feelings and attitudes about people based on characteristics like race, ethnicity, age and appearance. Because this cognitive process functions in our unconscious mind, we are typically not consciously aware of the negative racial biases that we develop over the course of our lifetime. In the general population, implicit racial bias often supports the stereotypical caricature of Black youth—especially males—as irresponsible, dishonest, and dangerous. In an ideal world, teachers and school administrators would be immune to these unconscious negative attitudes and predispositions about race. But, of course, they are not. So, for example, a 2003 study found that students who displayed a “black walking style” were perceived by their teachers as lower in academic achievement, highly aggressive and more likely to be in need of special education services (Neal, et al., 2003).

At the Kirwan Institute, our research suggests that implicit bias is implicated in every aspect of racial and ethnic inequality and injustice. One of most powerful consequences of implicit racial bias is that it often robs us of a sense of real compassion for and connection to individuals and groups who suffer the burdens of racial inequality and injustice in our society. So, for example, many policy makers and voters feel that people of color who are isolated in segregated low opportunity communities in our major metropolitan areas are just getting “what they deserve.” In each of us, implicit bias contributes to the development of an unconscious “hierarchy of caring” that influences who we care about and what groups and individuals are beyond our caring, in a place of invisibility or disposability.

Existing research suggests that implicit racial bias may influence a teacher’s expectations for academic success. For example, a 2007 meta-analysis of research found statistically significant evidence that teachers hold lower expectations—either implicitly or explicitly, or both—for African American and Latino children compared to European American children (Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968 Tenenbaum & Ruck, 2007). The results of this study align with previous meta-analyses investigating this issue. In a 2002 study, researchers used a sample of 561 elementary school children to determine if a student’s race or ethnicity played a role in their susceptibility to teacher “expectancy effects.” By conceptualizing teacher expectations as the degree to which teachers over- or under-estimated achievement compared to the students’ actual academic performance, researchers found that African American children are more likely than White children “to confirm teacher underestimates of ability and less likely to benefit from teacher overestimates of ability” (McKown & Weinstein, 2002, p. 176).

Lowered expectations in the classroom may result in differential treatment for students of color, including less praise and more disciplinary action from teachers. Research suggests that when given an opportunity to choose among several disciplinary options for a relatively minor offense, teachers and school administrators often choose more severe punishment for Black students than for White students for the same offense. For example, in the 2008-2009 academic year, Black students in North Carolina public schools were suspended at rates significantly higher than White students: eight times higher for cell phone use, six times higher for dress code violation, two times higher for disruptive behavior, and 10 times higher for displays of affection (Losen, 2010).

When Black students do “act out” in their classrooms in relatively benign ways, zero tolerance policies provide the opportunity for teachers and administrators—regardless of race or ethnicity—to apply excessive punishment, not just as a consequence of the minor infraction, but also as a reflection of implicit racial bias and a reprisal for the student’s perceived cultural deficiency. In California, 48% of the 710,000 suspensions issued in the 2011-2012 school year were for “willful defiance,” an offense that includes behaviors such as refusing to take off a hat, turn off a cellphone or failing to wear a school uniform (Los Angeles Times, 2013). During the 2010-2011 school year, according to data from the Ohio Department of Education, only 6% of out-of-school suspensions involved weapons or drugs, while 64% of suspensions were for disobedient or disruptive behavior, truancy, or intimidation (The Ohio Senate, 2013).

In 1998, the Ohio General Assembly passed a broad mandate that requires all public schools in the state to adopt a zero tolerance policy for “violent, disruptive, or inappropriate behavior (Section 3313.534 of the Ohio Revised Code.) As schools and districts in Ohio and across the country take an overly‐punitive approach to the implementation of zero tolerance policies, more and more students of color—and younger students—are being pushed out of school by suspensions or expulsions for relatively minor infractions like talking back to teachers or inappropriate dress. When these students are away from school, often in unsupervised settings, they fall behind academically and are often unable to catch up. Students who enter the juvenile justice system through the school-to‐prison pipeline often find it difficult to return to school.

As the ACLU points out, many under‐resourced schools become gateways to the school‐to‐prison pipeline by placing increased reliance on police rather than teachers and administrators to maintain discipline. “As a result, children are far more likely to be subject to school based arrests—the majority of which are for non‐violent offenses, such as disruptive behavior—than they were a generation ago” (ACLU, 2008). In 2008, the American Psychological Association said this about school suspensions:

“There are no data showing that out-of-school suspension or expulsion reduce rates of disruption or improve school climate indeed, the available data suggest that, if anything, disciplinary removal appears to have negative effects on student outcomes and the learning climate” (American Psychological Association, 2008 in Minnesota Department of Education, 2012).

In 2008, the American Civil Liberties had this to say about school suspensions:

Suspensions, often the first stop along the pipeline, play a crucial role in pushing students from the school system and into the criminal justice system. Research shows a clear correlation between suspensions and both low achievement and dropping out of school altogether. Such research also demonstrates a link between dropping out of school and incarceration later in life. Specifically, students who have been suspended are three times more likely to drop out by the 10th grade than students who have never been suspended. Dropping out in turn triples the likelihood that a person will be incarcerated later in life. In 1997, 68 percent of state prison inmates were school dropouts (New York Civil Liberties Union, 2008).

Today, many teachers and school administrators are frustrated by seemingly insurmountable problems in our country’s K-12 education system, especially in racially isolated, under-resourced, low-performing urban school districts. Too often, teachers get a disproportionate share of the blame for problems like high dropout rates, the racialized achievement gap, and the school funding crisis. When these problems are compounded by growing animosity toward teacher unions and a teacher evaluation/compensation system based heavily on standardized test results, it is not difficult to understand a growing sense of frustration among public school teachers, counselors and other personnel. These pressures coupled with growing classroom demands may leave inadequate time for teachers to voluntarily reflect on their own racial attitudes and how these attitudes might impact their students. What’s needed is an expansion of formal cultural competency training to include information about implicit bias and its consequences. If teachers and school administrators are aware of their racial biases, they will be better equipped to push back against these harmful attitudes.

The problem of racial and ethnic disproportionality in school discipline is not new. In 1975, in one of the earliest investigations of school disciplinary policies and practices, the Children’s Defense Fund revealed that suspension rates for African American students were between two and three times higher than those for White students (Drackford, 2006). Ongoing research shows that in many places, this problem has worsened, significantly. Our willingness to address this and other “racialized” problems in the Nation’s public education system is influenced by long standing racial discrimination and implicit racial bias. To proactively address racial imbalance in school discipline, we must continue to call out and push back against implicit racial bias and we must convince the American people that racial and ethnic bias in school discipline is a sign that the entire education system is out of balance.

Racialized disproportionality in the administration of school discipline is now a national crisis. In January of 2014, The U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights issued a national “guidance” to assist public elementary and secondary schools in meeting their obligations under Federal law to administer student discipline without discriminating on the basis of race, color, or national origin. Special emphasis is placed on the impact of discipline bias on students of color who have disabilities. The Guidance provides a national overview of racial disparities in the administration of school discipline and articulates a robust list of remedies to be implemented in cases where a school is in violation of Title IV or Title VI in the administration of discipline. These remedies include the following:

  • Providing school-based supports for struggling students whose behavior repeatedly disrupts their education and/or the education of other students
  • designating a school official as a discipline supervisor to ensure that the school implements its discipline policies fairly and equitably
  • revising discipline policies to provide clear definitions of infractions to ensure that consequences are fair and consistent
  • developing a training and information program for students and community members that explains the school’s discipline policies and what is expected of student in an age-appropriate, easily understood manner.

To ensure compliance with the provisions of the Guidance, the U.S. Department of Education and the Department of Justice will investigate complaints of bias in the application of school discipline and both departments will conduct compliance reviews nationwide (U.S. Department of Justice U.S. Department of Education, 2014).

Additional interventions that can be effective in reducing and eliminating racial bias in the application of school discipline include the following:

  • Apply zero tolerance policies only in cases where this magnitude of action is warranted
  • provide in‐service training that exposes all teachers and school administrators to information about the causes and consequences of implicit racial and ethnic bias, especially in the form of “cultural deficit thinking”
  • facilitate meaningful relationship building between teachers and all of their students by ensuring that all undergraduate teacher certification and Bachelor degree programs include substantial training in “cultural competency”
  • implement “Positive Behavioral Interventions and Support” (PBIS) practices and interventions in all schools. PBIS is a “decision making framework that guides selection, integration, and implementation of the best evidence‐based academic and behavioral practices for improving important academic and behavior outcomes for all students (PBIS.org, 2013).” Schools that successfully implement PBIS have teaching and learning environments that are less reactive, aversive, dangerous, and exclusionary, and more engaging, responsive, preventive, and productive
  • implement “Restorative Justice” practices in all schools: Restorative Justice is a victim‐centered response to crime that provides opportunities for those most directly affected by the crime —the victim, the offender, their families, and representatives of the community—to be directly involved in responding to the harm caused by the crime
  • as an alternative to out‐of‐school suspensions, implement in‐school disciplinary measures that temporarily separate serious offenders from the general student population but keep these students in school. A model program, the Success Academy (Education Week, 2013) has been implemented in the Baltimore public school system with very positive outcomes.

American Civil Liberties Union. What is the school-to-prison pipeline? Accessed at: https://www.aclu.org/racial-justice/what-school-prison-pipeline

American Psychological Association (2008). Are zero tolerance policies effective in the schools? Accessed at: http://www.apa.org/pubs/info/reports/zero-tolerance.pdf

Children’s Defense Fund – Ohio (2012). Zero tolerance and exclusionary school discipline policies harm students and contribute to the cradle to prison pipeline (Issues Brief, November 2012). Accessed at: http://www.cdfohio.org/assets/pdf-files/issue-brief-zero-tolerance.pdf

Cody, R. G. (2013). Expel check: Portland public schools has spent millions to help stop racial profiling of students in discipline cases. The problem is getting worse. Accessed at:

Downey, D. B. and Pribesh, S. (2004). When Race Matters: Teachers’ evaluations of students’ classroom behavior. American Psychological Association. Accessed at: http://soe.sagepub.com/content/77/4/267.full.pdf+html

Drakeford, W. (2006). Racial disproportionality in school disciplinary practices. National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems. Accessed at: http://www.nccrest.org/Briefs/School_Discipline_Brief.pdf

Education Week (2013). Baltimore leader helps district cut suspensions. Accessed at: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/02/06/20ltlf‐brice.h32.html

Lewin, T. (2012). Black students face more discipline, data suggest. The New York Times, March 6. Accessed at:

Losen, D. J. (2010). The school-to-prison pipeline. Presentation for the Civil Rights Project. Accessed at: http://ncpeo.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/LOSENFinalNCconference.ppt

McKown, C., & Weinstein, R. S. (2002). Modeling the role of child ethnicity and gender in children’s differential response to teacher expectations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(1), 159-184. Retrieved from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb01425.x/abstract

Neal, L. V. I., McCray, A. D., Webb-Johnson, G., & Bridgest, S. T. (2003). The effects of African American movement styles on teachers’ perceptions and reactions. The Journal of Special Education, 37(1), 49-57. Accessed at: http://coedpages.uncc.edu/cpobrie/African-Americans,bias,%20movement.pd f

New York Civil Liberties Union (2008). The impact of school suspensions, and a demand for passage of the student safety act. Accessed at:

PBIS.org (2009). Positive Behavioral Interventions and Support. Accessed at: http://www.pbis.org/about_us/default.aspx

Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the Classroom. New York, NY: Rinehart & Winston.


Kyk die video: Ася Казанцева. Как сдать любой экзамен, выучить иностранный язык и почему алкоголь меняет память?